preliminary radiation and heat findings on two recent tests Dec 16 and
Jan 14 on the same HNi fusion Rossi reactor by U. Bologna scientists,
D Bianchini, G Levi: Rich Murray 2011.01.23

[ Rich Murray: minor typos and confusing language corrected -- see
photos on the report ]

Sunday, January 23, 2011
Report official experiment in "cold fusion" reactor (Ni-H Rossi
Focardi) - Bologna, 14/01/11 [ 2011.01.14 ]
Eng. Andrea Rossi sent me today two reports of scientific experiments
carried out on
[ December 16 last year ] and January 14 this year,
by researchers at the University of Bologna (Department of Physics - INFN).
We explain below in the original version    the time to translate it
and then insert the text (also in Italian) the report of Dr. Joseph Levi.

>From this link you can download the report of Dr David Bianchini:

[ 6 page January 21, 2011 ]

Experimental evaluation, for radiation protection purposes,
of photon and neutron radiation fields
during the public presentation of the prototype
named "Energy Amplifier"


>From the measures, it is shown that there is no evidence, within the
bounds of the
instruments presented herein, of meaningful differences in the
measured values, compared to the background environmental radiation.


* The absence of a neutron field observable from the measured
background does not allow a dosimetric analysis for comparison with
the calibration values associated with the instrument.

* The measured results are not dissimilar from the environmental
background, both as average and as maximum values. "

Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.

Dr. Giuseppe Levi  January 23, 2011

This first and preliminary document reports the heat production
measures during two short tests on
December 16 2010 [Test 1] and
January 14 2011 [Test 2].

On December, 16 2010, I had the opportunity to test, for the first
time, a prototype of the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.
A photograph of the apparatus used in both tests is shown in Fig .1,
and a schematic is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

The Rossi Reactor prototype has a main horizontal cylindrical body
ending with a vertical pipe.
The H2 inlet was connected to a hydrogen bottle through no-return valves.
There was no H2 outlet, aside from a small purge valve that was closed.
Cables were connected to a control box, with 5 digital displays, that
were, “controlling the power sent to the resistors inside the
Prudentially, I lifted the control box to search for any other
possibly hidden cables, and found none.
The weight of the control box was a few Kg.
Two water pipes were connected to the system.
Temperature was measured and logged by two NTC sensors.
Another sensor, in the logger, measured the ambient temperature.
Power from the 220V line was monitored and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro
Es power meter.

Before igniting the reactor, the water flux was set and measured by
collecting, and then weighing, an amount of water in a container in a
given time.
The measured flux was of 168 +/- 2 g in 45 +/- 0.1 s. [ about 3 cc/sec ]

Then the power was turned on, and temperatures started to rise.
In Fig. 3, there is a plot of the temperatures that appeared on the
monitor during the test, taken from the start to just after the end of
the test.

Fig. 3

The three lines refer to:
(B) blue line: T1 water input temperature
(Y) yellow line: T2 water (steam) output temperature
(R) red line : ambient temperature

As it can be seen the system was turned on just around 16.55.
After about 30 minutes, a kink can be observed in the (Y cordinate).
Because input power ( 1,120 W, also checked via a clamp amperometer )
was not modified (see Fig. 5 later), this change of slope testifies
that the reactor had ignited.

After a startup period about 20 minutes long, a period where the
reactor power was almost constant, taking the water to ≈75 deg C, a
second kink is found when the reactor fully ignites, raising the
measured temperature to 101.6 +/-0.1 deg C and transforming the water
into steam.

At this point, we can try a simple calculation in order to evaluate
the power produced.
In order to raise the temperature of 168 g of water by 1 deg C,  ≈ 168
* 4.185 = 703 J is needed.
The water inlet temperature was 15 deg C, so the ΔT was 85 deg C.
We have 703 * 85 = 59,755 J.
At this energy, one must add the evaporation heat
≈2,272 J/g * 168 = 381,696 J.
Total energy in 45 sec is 59,755 + 381,696 = 441,451 J, and so
power is 441,451 / 45 = 9,810 W.

Statistical experimental errors in power estimation, due mainly to
flux measurements, can be conservatively estimated to within about
In this case we have +/- 150 W.

This result is only a lower limit of the energy produced. because the
system was not completely isolated, and we have not taken into account
any heat loss.
>From the calculation of the “produced power” when the water was at 75
deg C, which gives a result that is less than the electrical input
it is easy to understand that this systematic under-estimation surely
exceeds the statistical errors .

Before ending [Test1], all the power was reduced and then switched off
from the resistors, and also the hydrogen supply was closed.
No pressure decrease was noted in the H2 bottle.

Even in this condition, the system kept running self-sustaining for
about 15 minutes, until it was decided to manually stop the reaction
by cooling the reactor, by using a large water flux (note the decrease
of the water input temperature).

The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measurement was that the
steam was not checked to be completely dry.

During [Test2 ], this measure was done by Dr. Galantini, a senior
chemist who has used an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347
from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe.

Also in [Test2], a high precision scale (0.1g) was used to weight the
hydrogen bottle (13 Kg),
before, 13,666.7 +/- 0.1 g and,
after, 13,668.3 +/- 0.1 g, for this experiment.
The cause of this unexpected rise in weight was traced to be a remnant
piece of adhesive tape used to fasten the bottle during the
After careful examination of the tape, the weight loss was evaluated to be <1g.

This is far less than the expected weight loss due to chemical burning.
In fact, 1g of H can produce (max) 285 KJ.

In [Test2], the power measured was 12,686 +/- 211 W for about 40 min
with a water flux 146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s.

This means that 12,686 * 40 * 60 = 30,446 KJ was produced.
Dividing this number by 285 KJ, a weight of 107 g is obtained, two
orders of magnitude larger than the H consumption observed.

As a prudential check, the reactor was lifted up to seek any possibly
hidden power cord. None was found.

During the test, the main resistor, used to ignite the reaction,
failed due to defective welding.
Even in that condition, the reactor successfully started operating,
using the other resistors, but the duration of the experiment in full
power (≈40 min) was “too short” to observe a self sustaining reaction.

Fig. 4

The temperatures recorded in [Test 2] are shown in Fig 4.
Unfortunately, the original data has been lost, but the different
evolution is evident.

Fig. 5

Fig. 5 Power absorbed during both tests, in Watts.
The time abscissa has 15 min tics.
[ small ] Spikes in [Test 1] are due to line voltage spikes.
The anomalous behavior in [Test 2] is clear.
The average power absorbed during [Test 2] is ≈1,022 W.


The amount of power and energy produced during both tests is indeed
impressive, and, together with the self sustaining state reached
during [Test 1], could be an indication that the system is working as
a new type of energy source.
The short duration of the tests suggests that it is important to try
longer and more complete experiments.
An appropriate scientific program will be planned.

[ also interesting... ]

Bernard E Souw, Ph.D.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:09 AM

 Dear Dr. Rossi,

Is your novel invention somehow related to Dr. Randell Mills
(Blacklight Power, Inc.) hydrogen reactor based on hydrino reaction?
If not, do you see any possible relation with it?

Bernard Souw, Ph.D.

Bernard Eng-Kie Souw,
Ph.D., Electrical Engineer,
Dr. rer. nat., Diplom Physiker

Principal Scientist
BMS Enterprise,
Herndon, VA 20170

Primary Examiner
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
U.S. Department of Commerce
Alexandria, VA 22314
Contact: 571 272 2482

Reply via email to